Bill Roper – Computer Game Poison?
The ugly way Roper drove Hellgate: London and Flagship into bankruptcy is legendary. The greedy subscription model for an action RPG Diablo clone was an exceptionally bad idea. His constant arguing and fighting against respecs was rancid icing on the rotten cake.
In light of that, it was a real head scratcher when Cryptic hired him and made him Executive Producer of Champions Online. I must admit, while I enjoyed a lot of things about Champions Online, I’d been waiting for and worrying about Roper’s influence.
With the full opening of the Champions Online microtransaction cash shop (C-Store), those fears were apparently well founded.
I never understood where the heck Cryptic got off adding a cash shop to a full price + monthly subscription game. That’s not just double dipping, that’s triple dipping. I am fine with meta-game functions having an extra cost (server transfers, character renames, etc.), but actual game content should not have a fee in a subscription based game.
Cryptic’s constant resistance to making a decent respec system for Champions Online had boggled my mind since the beginning. Any kind of build/spec type advancement system needs a good respec feature. CO’s fully open ability system absolutely REQUIRES it. The flexibility is great, but with flexibility comes the ability to easily and quickly screw up your character.
When I read the details of the C-Store, it all became clear: $12.50 for a character respec. They designed a system that effectively requires frequent respecing, and then charge $12.50 per respec. Amazing. And with almost weekly patches that dramatically change (nerf) abilities, it is impossible to know how a power you have today will perform tomorrow.
In most MMOs, respecing your character either has quests or a gold cost equal to an hour or so of game time (or less). But in Champions Online, you pay $12.50. Unreal. Absolutely unreal.
If CO were a stock, I’d be selling short right now. The population is plummeting, and the decision making behind this C-Store does not inspire confidence at all. One can only hope that Roper will go back to voice acting and writing manuals after he kills this game.
Listening to the trials and tribulations of people playing Champions Online made me worry this was what was coming down the pipe. A shame, because microtransactions are a wonderful business model, but now every doubter is going to point to this as “why microtransactions suck.” We’ll see if if this has lasting consequence for those of us who know how not to screw over customers with this business model.
Although, I’d warn against pinning this all on Roper. He makes a convenient target given his recent stumble with Hellgate: London, but CO was in development for a long time before he came on board. He might have had pre-existing marching orders from further up the chain on this. Or, it may have been his idea as a desparate grab for cash on a game that is probably performing below expectations. It’ll take a while before we know the truth, if we ever really do.
You are totally right that there are more people to blame for this than Roper. But he’s the Executive Producer, and this fits completely with his prior history. So unless he’s willing to explain it away, I can’t help but assume he’s a major force behind both the lack of a decent respec system and the decision to charge an absurd $12.50 for a respec.
What is truly sad is the fact that at its core, Champions Online is FUN.
I have never, ever played an MMO where the developers seemed hell bent on strangling it in the crib. Massive nerfs on release day, a woeful lack of content (barely enough missions to even level up – and if you miss any, you’re screwed), adding 15 minute cooldowns to repeatable missions despite the aforementioned woeful lack of missions, a craptacular respec system, and now this outrageously priced cash shop. I mean wow, they are doing everything they can to kill this game.
I added up the number of people online last Thursday at around 9pm. There was a total of 2,400 people online in the 5 game zones (CO only has one server and the zones are all instanced. When you change zones, you can see a list of ALL of them, with the exact # of players in the instances).
Obviously people can argue about how many additional players might be in the newbie tutorial, in character creation, or in the powerhouse. They can also argue if Thursday at 9pm is a good enough “primetime.” But no matter what, having 2,400 total people online at that time is NOT A GOOD SIGN for a big budget MMO from a major publisher (Atari). And the fact that it represents a more than 50% drop from a month ago, that’s pretty darn bad.
Seems he was not the cool guy behind Blizzard as he was director in the years 1994-2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Roper_(video_game_producer)
I often have a similar feeling when it comes to Ultima Offline & Online and Richard Garriott, I feel they earned the praise that some of their co-workers actually deserved… check Tabula Rasa, I saw no “expert influence” by Garriott in this game.
I often mentioned it is particularly easy to blame Roper right now, as Psychochild said, but he is to blame nevertheless. The launch day nerf, the respec stuff – this does not sound like he really belonged to the smart boys at Blizzard that created games that are dominating the market today.
[...] Here is the original post: Bill Roper – Computer Game Poison? | Muckbeast [...]
I haven’t played CoH much in the last couple of years, but I’m pretty sure the last time I did a 1-month retry that there were options to buy costume pieces, character renames, and additional character slots. If that’s correct, the only thing different about the Champions store is offering retcons.
Can you (or have you, I’ve not looked in your archives) explain why you think frequent retcons are designed into the game? My main is level 29, and I’ve used one free retcon shortly after the game went live because I hadn’t picked up a defensive power. I haven’t had any need to do a full or partial retcon since then. I’ve played very little PvP in the game, and maybe that’s why, but I checked last night and I currently have 50+ global resources which is enough to do nearly a complete retcon if I wanted to.
[...] Read the original post: Bill Roper – Computer Game Poison? | Muckbeast [...]
[...] more from the original source: Bill Roper – Computer Game Poison? | Muckbeast Categories: Uncategorized Tags: diablo, flagship, greedy-subscription, hellgate, london, roper, [...]
Wow. I only had a tiny interest in checking out Champions Online before reading about the $12.50 respec cost, and after reading about it I have nearly zero. Maybe if they make it a free to play one day I will try it out.
Blue Kae: I’ll try to answer without going into too much detail.
Any game that has builds, specs, etc. needs respecs. This is because most people have no interest in doing research in advance. They don’t want to mess around with builders. They don’t want to spend 47 hours on the forums. They want to pick things that sound fun at the time while they are leveling up, and then move on. The more flexible a system is, the faster that is going to result in a lot of very messed up and broken characters. When they inevitably realize they dislike some of their choices, there needs to be a way for them to change that or undo it.
This is where some stubborn game developers will say “but I’m trying to make people treat their decisions seriously, because they are permanent!” Those game developers need to go back to 1992 if they want a job. I’ve been there. I had to learn and evolve. Picking powers for your character shouldn’t be like teenage pregnancy – a lifetime of consequences for a moment of bliss. Game designers who do not realize this are dinosaurs in need of a pink slip.
In Champions Online right now, there are tons of people who reach their teens or 20s and completely fall behind. I’ve helped 10-20 of them in my own supergroup. In most of those cases, they ended up having to completely reroll because the cost of retconning was too high.
Look at your example. Perhaps you didn’t know how important defensive powers were. So you needed a retcon to remedy that fact. A lot of people make similar “mistakes”, and they make them every few levels.
This is why every good game out there with a spec/build system has some kind of respec. Some games simply let you rebuild at will. Others charge a nominal fee or have some kind of mission/quest line. That’s fine. Charging $12.50 for it is absolutely outrageous on a subscription game.
[...] definitely hates Bill Roper. While I can't say who is responsible, I must say the stats and abilities of Champions Online [...]
Psychochild wrote: “those of us who know how not to screw over customers with this business model.”
How on earth did Bill Roper manage to not be one of those people?
It seems that many game developers are trying to push the envelope of what microtransactions can achieve in terms of revenue.
Surely the basic idea is that you do not put a price tag on a core utility anyone playing the game would need but tax extras for power-gamers or lazy or vain players. And just about everyone in MMO design should have figured this out by now.
I’m not going to claim that this is “why microtransactions suck”. However, doesn’t this demonstrate the potential suckage that is inherent in the business model? That given an inch, it’ll inevitably take a mile? That if you let the camel’s nose in the tent you’ll eventually have the whole thing?
Because what if CO (doesn’t look like it), or another MMOG, succeeds despite the obnoxious type of microtransactions? What if they make buckets of money by triple-dipping and flaunt their money hats? How long then will well-meaning “I would never screw over my customer” developers be able to hold the line against the suits and shareholders who will point to that example and demand tapping that well since, demonstrably, it doesn’t drive the customers away? Perhaps a little bit at first, then more, then even more … like the frog put into cool water that’s gradually raised to boiling.
Such are the kinds of thoughts that make me skeptical and nervous about MMOGs starting down the road to microtransactions. Can anyone guarantee it’ll go this far and no further? Does anyone else remember when there were only five minutes of commercials per hour on TV and nobody would have believed it would ever become like it is today? (Major reason why I quit watching TV eight years ago.)
Of course, it’s not the end of the world if MMOGs go that way. There are plenty of other forms of entertainment out there. Nevertheless I think it’ll be a shame.
Dellaster, try this line of thought:
What ever happened to when games were something you buy and then play? When did we start accepting that it was OK to *continue to pay* for a game that we’ve already paid for? Perhaps it was just a little bit at first, an expansion pack here, a graphics boost there, but eventually, we wound up paying just for the right to *access* a game, and when we stop paying, we can’t do anything with it. No matter how much money we’ve sunk on it, we’re cut off because we don’t keep that credit card drip going.
Man, I remember when games were something you didn’t have to have an intimate relationship with the company to play. (I’ll leave the nature of that intimacy to your imagination.) Now we have battle.net, Steam that has to check in online to work in OFFLINE mode, and freakin’ subscription games. Who would have believed it would have come to this?
Stabs wrote:
Surely the basic idea is that you do not put a price tag on a core utility anyone playing the game would need but tax extras for power-gamers or lazy or vain players.
Well, a lot of Asian microtransaction games charge you for the ability to respec, so this isn’t totally out of left field. I think the bigger issue here is that Champions Online is the problems with power balance. The game launched with some nerfs on day 1, so people in Beta who re-created their favorite characters were screwed over. The game allows for high customization and the balance is poor so it’s easy to pick a terrible set of powers. Part of the fun of the old pen and paper game the MMO is based on was choosing power sets and playing around with them. Charging for respecs is the salt in all these wounds.
Dellaster wrote:
However, doesn’t this demonstrate the potential suckage that is inherent in the business model?
News flash: any business model can fall prey to greed. What if WoW decided to raise the monthly fee to $20/month? What if they decided to release a “mini expansion” every few months for $20 a pop? You think millions of players are simply going to stop playing? Some might, but I’ll bet you any amount of money it would be much more profitable for them in the long run. When Meridian 59 went from $10/month to a confusing structure that made most people spend $30/month, 3DO actually made more money right after the transition. Most of the people leaving were going to play UO anyway, and the price difference only soaked the faithful and most likely hurt growth in the long run. With WoW getting long in the tooth and most likely not growing anymore, now is the time that Blizzard could just go into cash-cow mode and start trying to squeeze extra revenue out with the idea of people flocking to their next big game.
As much as I love LotRO, I think the $20 mini-expansion thing is a crock and a money grab; the only reason I’m not writing angry rants about it is because multi-month subscribers get the expansion “for free” and I happen to be in that category. But, I can just as easily see them not offering the same deal next time around when they want a cash infusion. Let’s not even talk about the “adventure pack” issue which is once again adding features but not letting already paying customers enjoy these features. And LotRO has a pretty typical “box + subscriptions” business model! This doesn’t even touch the multitude of for-pay services in subscription games: name changes, server changes, even lore-screwing faction changes in WoW, all for the almighty dollar. The difference here is that it’s incremental changes and we’re getting used to it; THIS is your cliché of the frog in the slowly boiling pot, and it’s already happening all around you.
How long then will well-meaning “I would never screw over my customer” developers….
If people play and pay for a game that flagrantly multi-dips with multiple revenue streams, then are they really getting screwed? I’m against it because it seems obvious that people wouldn’t appreciate it. But, if people prove me wrong then either I adjust my attitudes or I deal with the consequences. All game developers have to listen to what the audience tells them, and if they say that they’re willing to pay three times over for a game then I should listen. Perhaps I’ll brag about how I only single-dip with my games.
I don’t think this is a concern because games who have tried to do this have not done well at all. Archlord tried to do subscriptions + item shop before and failed miserably, and they even gave subscribers free “points” to spend every month based on subscription level. I don’t think any game is going to be very successful trying to get subs and item shop revenues; Muckbeast’s reports on the peak numbers in CO seems to bear this out.
Ultimately the customers will have to decide if a game is worth the price of admission. The benefit of a true microtransaction business model for customers is that you aren’t locked into a subscription. The game will still be around in a few months if you want to take a break, and you don’t have to buy expansions to get back into the game. From a developer’s point of view, microtransactions allow customers to pay what they feel the game is worth, and it can make a lot more revenue per person than a subscription model can; that means a small, niche game that would stagnate under subscriptions (like Meridian 59 has) could flourish if it were designed to take advantage of this newer business model.
Just cancelled my CO sub.
Will resub when they drop this retcon for 12$50 nonsense.
A retcon that almost costs a monthly payment? The paint at Cryptic must have a lot of lead…
Tesh, when was it that you stopped being able to simply buy and then play a game without continuing to pay? I received my latest, Valhalla Knights for the Wii, just the other day (whoo-hoo, finally a second game I may like on the Wii!).
I’m not really sure if your analogies are intended to support or oppose my thoughts. Those games that contain obnoxious DRM were not, and never will be, purchased or played by me. They crossed the line, exceeded my tolerance for that sort of thing, just as I believe microtransactions will (I’m stressing my tolerance level here). I skipped several AAA games last year because of that (e.g. Mass Effect).
Obviously MMOGs won’t choose a level of microtransactions that most players can’t (eventually, little by little) tolerate. If they did they’d go out of business. They’ll instead find a level just below intolerance, for enough players that they can still make money. Every bit that the market will bear. Which they are perfectly free to do if they wish, of course.
My objection is very personal and selfish: I know I won’t be able to tolerate as much of it as most others (just as with TV commercials) and MMOGs will no longer be an option for my enjoyment. I don’t want that, so I make my protestations. I don’t expect to be listened to since I am not the voice of the majority (it seems) and therefore not where most of the money is. I’ve pretty much accepted the fact that microtransactions are the inevitable future and that they will inflate beyond my tolerance in short order.
Is my position clearer now? I’m pretty much just making my last whine before leaving MMOGs behind forever. I know nobody will miss me or those like me.
Just pointing out that there are plenty of viewpoints. I can’t stand subscription games, but some love ‘em. So it goes. Throwing everything onto a slippery slope doesn’t help much.
Brian ‘Psychochild’ Green wrote:
Ultimately the customers will have to decide if a game is worth the price of admission.
Clearly. Thank you for your reasoned response.
I was writing my previous post when yours was posted. I think I’ll just let what I wrote stand as my position. I believe the majority of customers will decide on a price — and method of payment — that I won’t agree with. C’est la vie. There are other forms of entertainment. Best wishes.
Tesh wrote:
Just pointing out that there are plenty of viewpoints. I can’t stand subscription games, but some love ‘em. So it goes. Throwing everything onto a slippery slope doesn’t help much.
Points taken. What can I say? I’m unemployed and bored, an unpleasant combo that I allowed to prompt me into making overly-dramatic posts. Sorry ’bout that. I’ll try to restrain myself in the future.
> Stabs wrote:
>
> Surely the basic idea is that you do not put a price tag on a core utility anyone playing the game would need but tax extras for power-gamers or lazy or vain players.
You’d think, huh? I mean, charging for useful stuff is fine in a non-subscription game. But once you charge a subscription, you’re done.
> Dellaster wrote: What if they make buckets of money by triple-dipping and flaunt their money hats?
Then I’d say they succeeded in giving a lot of customers what they want.
With the huge variety in entertainment options out there, its pretty hard for someone to truly get away with ripping people off.
> Can anyone guarantee it’ll go this far and no further?
As the customer, YOU can guarantee that. Because you will only pay for what you are willing to pay for. And the people who go to far, will fail. The ones who don’t go too far, will succeed.
> Tesh wrote: When did we start accepting that it was OK to *continue to pay* for a game that we’ve already paid for?
When we wanted new content, updates, persistent worlds, etc, etc.
Regarding your comments about Steam and Battle.net, I’m with you there. Not every single game needs to be some kind of service you login to. Games that do not have some kind of persistent world or managed multiplayer don’t need and shouldn’t have a login.